• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Human Life Amendment

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
Paul begins his addendum with a reminder that as a “pro-life OB/GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies, I have always opposed abortion. Let me be very clear: life begins at conception. It is the duty of the government to protect life, as set forth in our founding documents.”

But he adds that as a strict constitutionalist he is compelled to stand by America’s chief governing document, “even when doing so is hard and forces me to stand alone.” He notes that the fight to protect the unborn is just such an instance. “Both this pledge and the pro-life issue itself require some careful thought from my fellow pro-lifers so we can avoid the trap of throwing out the Constitution in our effort to save lives,” he explains. “Just as we cannot have liberty without life, I believe the opposite is also true: we must keep the Constitution and liberty in mind when fighting for the rights of the unborn. Otherwise, we undermine the entire system our Founders put their lives on the line to create in order to protect life and liberty.”
Calling the passage of a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution a “laudable goal,” Paul goes on to qualify what he believes is the constitutional role of the federal government in protecting life. “I believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed,” he says. “I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception.” But, he emphasizes, “I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence.”

Addressing the equal protection clause that pro-life advocates site for federal muscle in protecting the unborn, Paul notes that the “Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to cancel out the Tenth Amendment. This means that I can’t agree that the Fourteenth Amendment has a role to play here, or otherwise we would end up with a ‘Federal Department of Abortion.’ Does anyone believe that will help life?”

Paul exhorts that we “should allow our republican system of government to function as our Founders designed it to: protect rights at the federal level, enforce laws against violence at the state level.”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10388-gop-candidates-pledge-to-pursue-pro-life-personhood-agenda
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Ron Paul said:
But, he emphasizes, “I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence.”

many states are nullifying federal laws they disagree with, California currently is ignoring federal immigration law, is set to outlaw e-verify, and has already basically decided not to enforce marijuana laws..

While I am a strong advocate of states rights... his comment leads me to question.. what good is a strong federal law on pre-birth rights, if it leaves the enforcement to the states?

States such as California, and the north east will nullify the federal law, while the others make laws similar to what they have now..

supporting this watered down view while professing to be hard fast in protecting life seems to be a bit schizophrenic..
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
Steve said:
Ron Paul said:
But, he emphasizes, “I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence.”

many states are nullifying federal laws they disagree with, California currently is ignoring federal immigration law, is set to outlaw e-verify, and has already basically decided not to enforce marijuana laws..

While I am a strong advocate of states rights... his comment leads me to question.. what good is a strong federal law on pre-birth rights, if it leaves the enforcement to the states?
States such as California, and the north east will nullify the federal law, while the others make laws similar to what they have now..

supporting this watered down view while professing to be hard fast in protecting life seems to be a bit schizophrenic..

my understanding was that they were talking about a U.S. Constitutional amendment- a right to life

so like say our second amendment rights- gun laws are ( should be) left up to the states as long as they don't violate our Constitution.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
he says. “I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception.” But, he emphasizes, “I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence.”

the comment was in reference to federal law,..

with his view of the feds making a law and the states upholding the law.. I see it as no different then it is now..
 

Latest posts

Top